Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out

“different personal characteristics of an offender”

and insert

“an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort.”

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) In the case of guidelines within subsection (4) about pre-sentence reports, the Council must, after making any amendments of the guidelines which it considers appropriate, obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing sentencing guidelines as definitive guidelines.

(7B) In any case to which subsection (7A) applies, the Secretary of State may—

(a) consent to the issuing of guideline as definitive guidelines,

(b) refuse consent for the issuing of guidelines as definitive guidelines, or

(c) direct the Council to issue the guidelines in an amended form as definitive guidelines.

(7C) Where the Secretary of State has consented to the issuing of guidelines under subsection (7B)(a) or has directed the Council to issue guidelines in an amended form under subsection (7B)(c), the Council must issue the guidelines as definitive guidelines in the appropriate form”.”

This amendment stops sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports coming into force unless approved by the Lord Chancellor.

Amendment 2, page 1, leave out line 10 and insert—

““a particular demographic cohort’ may include those related to—”.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(d) status as part of a group that may have experienced trauma from experiences of racism or discrimination—

(i) inter-generationally and relayed to the defendant, or

(ii) as a result of important historical events which may have had a greater impact on those from specific groups and cultures.”

This amendment would ensure that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports cannot include a defendant’s status as part of a group, particularly not if this involves considering events that may not have impacted the defendant personally.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Independent review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review to be carried out of—

(a) the effects of the changes made to section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 by section 1, and

(b) sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports.

(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Sentencing Council, appoint a person with professional experience relating to pre-sentence reports to conduct the review.

(3) The review must be completed within two years of the passing of this Act.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.”

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case.

There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for.

These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says,

“The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.”

Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any

“provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.”

That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.

Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.

The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I have to applaud the hon. Gentleman for reading out his Whips’ questions there. I have said it before and I will say it again, however: I do wish that he and those on the Labour Front Bench would stop perpetuating something that is obviously untrue. They know it is untrue. It has been said numerous times. The Sentencing Council itself—[Interruption.] Let me finish my point, because it is important.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Lord Chancellor has just suggested that those on the Government Front Bench are perpetuating an untruth. He might like to think about whether he wishes to withdraw that comment.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is, I hope, inadvertent, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Sentencing Council wrote to the Lord Chancellor correcting her on this very point, and made clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from the one—

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will make progress.

The guidance does not just create the appearance of two-tier justice; it is two-tier justice. The Secretary of State cannot wash her hands of that. The bail guidance comes from her own Ministry. The pre-sentence guidance is issued by officials she oversees. The bench book is sanctioned by the Judicial College, under the watch of the Lady Chief Justice. If the Justice Secretary truly believes in equality before the law, and if her words are more than empty slogans, why is any of this happening on her watch? The truth is simple. This Bill is not the solution. It is a fig leaf. It is damage control. It is political theatre to distract from the deeper rot that the Government have permitted to fester. Until this type of guidance is ripped out, root and branch, from sentencing, bail, judicial training and appointments, the principle of equality before the law remains under direct assault.

We will not vote against the Bill, because we will never support two-tier justice, but we will not let the Justice Secretary rewrite history, either. She did not stop these rules or fight against them. She did not even know about them until we pointed them out to her. She allowed them to happen, and then panicked when the backlash came. Now she is using this House’s time to clean up her mess. She wears the robes and she dons the wig, but she is not in control of the justice system. Despite the big talk today, there is still two-tier justice on her watch. If she continues to do so little about it, we can only conclude that, at heart, she truly supports it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Mother of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

Well, either our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded, or it is so soft-minded that the very existence of a pre-sentencing report will make it rule in a way in which it would not otherwise have ruled.

Decisions by judges and magistrates on individual cases are not the same as policy. The Sentencing Council itself is very clear that it does not seek to dictate policy; it is simply trying to ensure that judges and magistrates have the maximum amount of information. Leading King’s Counsel Keir Monteith says that there has been a deliberate misreading of the rules in order to generate a row, and I believe that is correct.

Then we come to the talk, which I have heard on both sides of the House, about two-tier criminal justice. That can only mean that black defendants are treated more favourably than white defendants. Yet the facts tell us to the contrary. Ministers will be aware of the Lammy review, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—now the Foreign Secretary. It was a review of race in the criminal justice system, in which he found that

“Despite making up just 14% of the population,”

black and ethnic minority men and women

“make up 25% of prisoners, while over 40% of young people in custody are from BAME backgrounds.”

He added:

“If our prison population reflected the make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison—the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons.”

My right hon. Friend did not find a criminal justice system where black and brown people are treated more favourably than white people, and he did not find equality before the law. There is no reason to believe that things have changed since he drew up his review.

We need to appreciate that not only do we have a two-tier system, but it is a two-tier system in completely the opposite way to what the Lord Chancellor suggests, and it has been like that for decades. The population wants to see our two-tier criminal justice system taken seriously.

Members may remember the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence in the early 1990s. It took a Labour Government and a Labour Home Secretary to commission a judge-led inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case. In 1999 the Macpherson inquiry reported. It spoke in an unequivocal way about institutional racism in the police service, and it spoke in a way that I had never heard it spoken about in this House or at the most senior levels in the state. Nobody since then has challenged the notion that there is institutional racism in the police.

Do we have to have our own Macpherson inquiry into the workings of the judicial system before people will accept that institutional racism is an issue in the courts as well? It is not enough to say, “Well, you know, the facts point in that direction but we are not quite sure why the figures are like that.” We know why the figures are like that, and we have known that for decades.

If we want to win the respect of the community as a whole, we must be seen to be working towards a fair criminal justice system, not just trying to score points off the opposition; and we must look at the long term, rather than the short term. We know that, in England and Wales, black people are much more likely to be arrested than white people. Specifically, black individuals are twice as likely to be arrested as white individuals. That disparity extends to imprisonment, with black individuals being more likely to be sentenced to prison and serving longer sentences than their white counterparts. Everybody knows that people are not treated the same, and it is misleading of Members on both sides of the House to imply that that is so.

Peter Herbert, chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, said:

“We have experienced racist two-tier policing for over 500 years. If we achieve equal treatment that is not two-tier as it is long overdue. We have never asked for special treatment only equal treatment.”

The Lord Chancellor should pay attention to the wish of so many members of the community, in her constituency in Birmingham and my constituency in east London, and the wishes of so many millions of people in the community to see a fair criminal justice system that treats people fairly, not unfairly as has happened in the past. Members will know that it took the Macpherson inquiry to get a measure of understanding about criminal justice in policing.

In closing, I will say this. It is interesting to hear the banter about this issue between those on the two Front Benches, but this is not an issue for banter. This is people’s lives; this is people’s liberty. I do not think that the debate is enhanced by some of the Trump-like narrative that we are getting from the Opposition. We do not need Donald Trump-type politics in Britain today. We need seriousness about the unfair discrimination in the criminal justice system, and a willingness not just to talk about it, but to do something about it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Josh Babarinde.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats believe in equality before the law, Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, and Liberal Democrats believe that no one is above the law, so it has been heartening to hear those words echoed across the Chamber today.

But actions speak louder than words, which is why I regret to say that few have acted more to erode those legal and democratic values than the two-tier Tory party that occupies the Benches next to me—two-tier Tories who unlawfully partied in No. 10, while the rest of us missed funerals for lost relatives; two-tier Tories who unlawfully suspended Parliament to get their way, while lecturing us about the rule of law; two-tier Tories who unlawfully approved developments for their donor mates, while purporting to talk tough on crime; and two-tier Tories whose unlawfulness, chaos and double standards landed them with the biggest election defeat in their history.

The Conservatives still have not learned, because that hypocrisy continues today in the context of the sentencing guidelines in question. They nodded through earlier editions of the guidelines when they were in government, yet they make a scene about them today now that it has become politically convenient for them to do so. According to the Sentencing Council, just one MP objected to the cohorting in the previous guidelines put out to consultation in 2023-24. I will give way to the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), if he can confirm that it was he who made that objection. No—radio silence. [Interruption.]

Our country deserves better than the circumstances that have given rise to the Bill. Those circumstances are ultimately that the previous Government underfunded our probation and courts system so severely that pre-sentence reports have since been rationed and are not used universally, or indeed anywhere near it. In fact, the use of pre-sentence reports has declined by 44% over the last decade almost, according to Lord Timpson. That is despite the sentencing code having a presumption in favour of their use, regardless of any personal characteristic or circumstance.

The Liberal Democrats believe that that near-universal presumption is critical, because when the state is considering depriving someone of their liberty, judges and magistrates should be equipped with all the information possible to pass the sentence that is most likely to reduce reoffending and protect victims and survivors. Offenders need it and victims deserve it.

The Liberal Democrats believe that we should really be having a debate about how we can resource a criminal justice system that can fulfil pre-sentence reports for all offenders who need them, rather than a debate that feels grounded in rationing their use. We will therefore abstain on Second Reading, not because of indifference, but because of principled concerns that I will present constructively, to reciprocate the constructiveness with which the Secretary of State and her officials have engaged with me on this matter in recent weeks.

One concern is that this Bill simply is not necessary to achieve its stated aim. The Sentencing Council has, in response to the strength of feeling in Parliament, paused the implementation of its guidelines. It has not said how long that pause will last. My understanding is that the Department has not asked the council how long it would be willing to pause the guidelines. It seems to me that, in response to the most recent act of the Lord Chancellor, there is new-found space for an agreement to be reached, through dialogue with the Sentencing Council and the Lady Chief Justice, without a single minute of debate on primary legislation. Such legislation could then be devoted instead to patching up other injustices in our system.

Another concern is that this proposal is being rushed through without comprehensive consultation or co-ordination with wider work that is already under way. David Gauke is currently conducting an independent review of sentencing, which is due to report this spring. That review ought to have provided a clear opportunity to examine these issues in depth and to ensure that any reforms are evidence-based, balanced and considered in the broader context of sentencing policy. If the Government are convinced that primary legislation is required, why not wait for the Gauke review to report, take advantage of that independent insight, and then introduce coherent proposals in legislation later in this Session?

An additional concern is that although the Bill ostensibly gestures towards fairness, it fails to confront some of the most pressing injustices in our criminal justice system—to which the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), referred—including those identified by the Lammy review.

We know that there is disproportionality at most stages of the criminal justice process affecting various groups, from stop and search to charging decisions, early guilty pleas and sentencing outcomes. Ethnic minority individuals, women and those with mental health issues continue to be over-represented and underserved, yet this legislation makes no attempt to address that. While I welcome the review of data that the Justice Secretary described, it is unwelcome that the outcome of that does not feature in these proposals.

Finally, I am deeply troubled with the political context in which this Bill is being introduced. It may appear technical on the surface, but the legislation risks falling into a trap in which criminal justice is used by some in this House and beyond to stoke division, appeal to populist headlines and wage a cynical culture war. We must not allow our courts and sentencing practices to become pawns in that political game, nor part of a second stab at a Tory leadership campaign.

It is critical that in this debate and in any reform we make to sentencing policy, we lead with an evidence-based process and with a determination to tackle the injustices embedded in our criminal justice system, whether it is those disproportionately affecting women, ethnic minorities or white working-class boys—the list continues. We urge the Government to listen, reflect and return with proposals that work with the Sentencing Council, with the judiciary and with the findings of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review. Only then can we abolish the unjust two-tier system created under the two-tier Tories.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

After the Chair of the Justice Committee, I propose to introduce a four-minute time limit. I am conscious that many Members will be disappointed this evening.

Whiplash Injury Compensation

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.

This draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, the amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024 following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027.

The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aim to reduce the number and cost of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums. Elements of the reform programme were delivered by the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff of damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.

The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation and every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of that statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024 and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024. Upon reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for consumer prices index inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary.

In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.

I believe that the House will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years.

The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240 for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher, tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside the fixed tariff.

When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year buffer. The buffer was designed to account for expected inflation, according to the available forecasts at that time, and to ensure that claimants were not under-compensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts, noting that inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher than expected rate, and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence had noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024, and should again include a buffer to account for the expected inflation until the next review in 2027. The whiplash tariff will therefore be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.

As I have mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail prices index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation. It is worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across Government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics.

In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. While this three-year buffer could lead to some over-compensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and risk significant under-compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being under-compensated in the years leading up to 2027.

I would, though, like to acknowledge that some respondents to the call for evidence expressed concern that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in the tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to significantly impact on savings. The tariff amounts are only being adjusted to account for inflation and, as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.

Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders suggested that the whiplash tariff should either be subject to an annual review or be index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated by the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.

It is also worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.

In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As we have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, the instrument only adjusts the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

As the Minister explained, the Government have conducted their statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 and determined that, while the existing tariff structure remains appropriate, an inflationary uplift is required. The proposed amendments will increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 by 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. That adjustment accounts for inflation since 2021 and provides an additional buffer for expected inflation until the next statutory review in 2027.

The framework of the tariff remains unchanged, including the two-tier structure for “whiplash only” and “whiplash with minor psychological injury”, the requirement for a single medical report to support a claim, and the option for a discretionary uplift of up to 20% in exceptional cases. The review process highlighted challenges in determining prognosis due to inconsistencies in medical reporting. The Ministry of Justice has committed to working with the pre-action protocol medical report provider MedCo to improve the clarity and quality of medical reports, and we welcome that commitment.

I understand that the Treasury is due to report later this month on whether insurers have, in fact, passed savings from these reforms on to policyholders—the primary, or certainly an important, aim of the policy’s original intention. It is important that motorists receive the anticipated lower premiums. We look forward to the findings of the review, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that it is on track.

Furthermore, while the statutory instrument is limited to amending tariff amounts, it forms part of a wider framework of reforms to be reviewed. A post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme is due to take place in 2025-26, and we welcome the opportunity to assess its effectiveness in delivering fair compensation and maintaining access to justice.

We support the regulations and recognise their role in ensuring that claimants continue to receive fair and proportionate compensation. We look forward to the continued monitoring of the system to ensure that it remains balanced and effective. Given the extensive and thorough review of the regulations provided by the Minister, I do not seek to comment any further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the support of the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition on the direction of travel.

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for reminding us that behind every claim is a person, and that this is about helping real people and real lives. The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), rightly mentioned the report on reducing insurance costs for consumers. We share his and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s concern about that, which I think is felt across the House.

The report was published on 27 March and shows that the whiplash reforms have reduced insurance costs for customers. It was produced by His Majesty’s Treasury, which worked with the Financial Conduct Authority to fulfil its statutory obligation under section 11(7) of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Although it is a factual reporting of the information from insurers provided to HMT through the Financial Conduct Authority, it does not represent the Government’s view, so it is right and proper that, separately from the report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am sure I heard the Minister ask for the leave of the House at the beginning of his remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Dear, dear, dear me. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman’s amnesia is as bad as ever: 14 whole years appear to have disappeared entirely from his memory. He talks about parliamentary sovereignty, but when his party was in government and he was a Secretary of State or a Minister, he appeared never to know what on earth parliamentary sovereignty was or how to exercise power.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather distressed that my approach has led to a pause in the guidelines, that I will introduce a Bill that will deal with the offending bit of this guideline, and that I will consider the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council ahead of the sentencing Bill later this year. I understand that it must be very disappointing for him that he has been exposed as someone who is all talk and no action, and that I get the job done. I can see that that annoys him greatly.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to begin by apologising to the country, as I often invite him to do when we have our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. In 14 years, he never appeared to discover any of the things that he now discusses regularly from the Opposition Benches. He did nothing about those matters when he was a member of the Government that ran the country. Perhaps that is the problem: the Conservatives never really ran the country; they gave up on the job. He never rolled up his sleeves and put in the hard work to get the job done. That is why we inherited prisons on the brink of collapse, and why I am now unwinding all the mistakes that his party made and the guidance that he and his party welcomed.

The right hon. Gentleman did not tell me what discussions he has had with the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Before the Conservatives explain why they are so het up about things now, they should explain why they welcomed those things when they were in office. There was no answer to those questions. I do not believe that there were many questions in that diatribe from the shadow Justice Secretary.

On sentencing, the pause in the guideline was communicated—that is a matter for the Sentencing Council. I will, of course, engage with the judiciary to ensure that all is understood regarding the pause. Nothing has changed in relation to the ordering of pre-sentencing reports by judges in all the circumstances in which they would ordinarily do so. The guideline is what has been paused, and it will now not come into effect until Parliament has had its say. The right hon. Gentleman references two individuals. That is the difference between me and him: I do not make it personal. I just focus on the job, and I get the job done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I realise that this is not a popular view in the House, but the Justice Secretary will be aware that some of us are astonished that she thinks our judges are so weak-minded as to be affected by what are guidelines in relation to how they sentence black and brown defendants.

The Justice Secretary will be aware that report after report and repeated statistical analysis have demonstrated what some of us consider to be unfairness in relation to black and brown people and the criminal justice system. She will also be aware that the reason the Sentencing Council was made a statutory independent body was to avoid even the appearance of ministerial interference in sentencing. This is not the United States; our political and judicial systems are entirely separate. Can she explain why she is so triumphant about not just interfering in sentencing, but passing a piece of legislation to cut across what the Sentencing Council is saying?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions—at least she asks some proper questions. She says that her view on the policy might be an unpopular one, but this is the place where views on policy, popular or unpopular, can and should be debated. That is at the heart of my disagreement with the Sentencing Council on the guideline.

I think that the matters that my right hon. Friend raises in relation to race and the disparities in the criminal justice system are the proper preserve of politicians. The answer to how we deal with those issues will be a policy answer, and it is for the Government, the Opposition and other Members to debate that policy answer and pursue it through Parliament. That is why I reject entirely the suggestion that anything I have done impinges upon the independence of the judiciary or calls into question the separation of powers in this country.

The Sentencing Council is itself a creature of statute; it is only 15 years old. It is entirely proper for a politician—a Government Minister, the Lord Chancellor—to assert that there is a boundary between that which is policy and a matter for Parliament and that which is judicial practice and consistency in judicial cases. I have sought to reassert that boundary. I look forward to working with Members with differing views from across the House in considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. As I have said, I will return to those matters in the coming months.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

There is only one group in this House that lost control of our justice system: the decimated former Government on the Opposition Benches. Overcrowded prisons, reoffending through the roof, victims waiting for justice—what a disgrace. That disgrace continues today through the downplaying of the impact of intergenerational trauma—of which child abuse is a form—by the shadow Justice Secretary.

I thank the Lord Chancellor for engaging with me on this issue in advance of her statement. Our criminal justice system’s ability to take someone’s freedom away is one of the most humbling powers that it holds, which is why sentencing decisions must include all available information. Pre-sentence reports are a critical part of that process. She mentioned pregnant women, survivors of domestic abuse and survivors of modern slavery as important examples of where that is considered. However, because everybody has a context, the Liberal Democrats believe that such reports should consistently be made available whenever anyone’s liberty is at stake. We will therefore scrutinise the legislation through that lens of equality before the law.

It is rich of the Conservatives to complain about inequality in our justice system when it was they who presided over a state of affairs in which someone from one our country’s most deprived areas is 10 times more likely to be in prison than someone from the least deprived, someone who looks like me is four times more likely to be stopped and searched than others, and people with special educational needs represent half the prison population compared to a fifth of the general population. Will the Justice Secretary outline how she will fairly tackle those disparities to restore confidence in the justice system, which was so shattered by the Conservative party?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his questions. He is right: as I said in my statement, pre-sentence reports are an incredibly vital tool for judges. In fact, the requirement is that they should ask for a pre-sentence report unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. There is a strong push towards obtaining pre-sentence reports in the vast majority of cases. The Probation Service that I inherited from the previous Administration has struggled under increased workloads. It was a service that the Conservative party privatised and then partly renationalised—our Probation Service officers, who do vital work every single day, have been through the mill.

I have been making changes to the focus of the Probation Service in the last few months to pivot its work to focus on high and medium-risk offenders and free up probation capacity, so that more time can be spent doing vital work such as the preparation of pre-sentence reports. I will carry on working with the Probation Service to ensure it is ready to do what is asked of it, to a very high and consistent standard, which I know will be important to all Members. I have already announced 1,300 extra probation officers in the financial year that has just passed and another 1,000 in the coming financial year. Probation remains vital to the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and we will ensure it is in a position to meet the asks that are made of it.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points about disparities across the criminal justice system, I thank him for the spirit in which he has engaged with me on those matters. I have the same concerns as him, but I believe we should understand what the latest data is showing us. That is why I have asked for a review of all the current data, and we should test any solutions we come up with. They are policy solutions, so they would have to be debated and passed in this House, and politicians are ultimately responsible at the ballot box for the choices they make, but those solutions have to work—they have to yield a change in these disparities. That is what I want to test.

In my engagement with the Sentencing Council on this particular guideline, it has accepted that the causes of the disparities are unclear, and no one is sure whether the changes to pre-sentence reports would make a difference anyway. I am not willing to sacrifice public confidence in the criminal justice system or chip away at the idea of equality before the law for solutions that are appropriate for debate in this place and that we are not even sure would work. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman closely in the coming weeks and months on these issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council is a judicial body whose president is the Lady Chief Justice and whose chair is a distinguished Court of Appeal judge. Its function was previously executed by the Court of Appeal. It is fully independent but is linked to Parliament, not least because the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee for all its guidelines, including those under discussion today. Its judicial leadership, independence and democratic accountability are its strength and a primary reason it is held in high esteem in the criminal justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor reassure me that those attributes will remain integral to the council, whatever changes are proposed in the current legislation, sentencing review and sentencing Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me an opportunity at the conclusion of my statement to support the Probation Service. In all of the Tory party’s terrible legacy in the criminal justice system, including prisons on the point of collapse, what it did to the Probation Service was unconscionable. This Government are putting things right. I have already made changes to the Probation Service, and I will ensure that it is on the strongest possible footing going into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement.

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 18 stand part.

May I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker? Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable.

Violence against Women and Girls

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde]

On the subject of charities that support victims and survivors, yesterday I met representatives of Victim Support. They shared that, at a time when demand for their services is surging, they are facing a 7% real-terms cut in funding because of the increase in national insurance contributions, as well as cuts to police and crime commissioner budgets. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be doing more to support—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. If I am going to get every Member in—and I would very much like to do so—interventions must be short.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree with the hon. Member, which is why I have raised the issue of national insurance on a couple of occasions. In fact, Jasmine House, which supports women who are the victims of rape and already has a two-year waiting list, was looking to add an extra member of staff, but is now going to reduce its number of staff members. It just cannot afford it, because of the rise in national insurance contributions.

With 8,000 cases of domestic violence being reported to the police in Leicester alone, it is clear that we need to ensure that the charity sector receives increased long-term funding, and that the police receive the best possible training on how to help the victims and investigate the cases. From our side, we offer cross-party support to help the Government however we can, to make sure that we can help with this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, because it will be for both genders to step up. We can see concepts of masculinity transforming before our eyes, exacerbated by the internet but also by political interventions. It is incumbent upon us—the younger generation of men—to stand up and face that head on.

Trafficking is one of the most extreme kinds of violence against women. It is happening all over the UK right now. We can do more to stop it, and we must.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now have a three-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her opening speech. Equally, as hon. Members across the House have done, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for her continued championing of this hugely important issue. I will take a moment to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for their incredible strength in telling us their personal stories. I am genuinely ashamed to live in a society where some people see it as acceptable to go up to a woman and tell her that they want to rape her. I find that disgusting. The sad reality is, many of us are not surprised by that. Women I know have experienced online abuse where exactly that sort of language has been used towards them. It is not acceptable. It is disgusting. I am ashamed that we live in a society where that happens.

I want to take a moment—I have only got a moment—to thank two local champions in my constituency who have done so much to raise this important issue time and again: Councillor Lanie Shears and Councillor Kay Morrison. Every year on White Ribbon Day, Kay organises a vigil in Harlow town centre where she and other community champions read out the name of every single woman and girl who has been killed by a man in the previous 12 months. That takes 20 minutes. Last year, they raised a motion on Harlow council calling on all councillors, council leaders and civic leaders to lead by example in their strategic leadership, in changing cultures, in raising awareness and in engaging with men and boys, because, as the Minister said at the start of the debate, everybody needs to play their part to get this right.

I really recommend that everybody does the White Ribbon training, which gives practical advice on how we can support women. But this issue is about more than that. It does not start with attacks on women or rape or murder. It starts with comments in the workplace—misogyny and banter. That is what needs to change. We have to change the culture. We have to educate men and boys. We have to say, “Enough is enough.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Trial of Lucy Letby

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Whip to move the motion for the Adjournment, I remind the House that although there are currently no live proceedings before the courts, there is still the potential for further civil or criminal proceedings. Members will therefore wish to take care to avoid saying anything that could prejudice any case that might come before the courts in future.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Victims of Sexual Violence: Court Delays

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we keep the blame for the backlogs exactly where it belongs? Defence barristers are doubtless doing the best they possibly can for their clients in some extremely difficult circumstances, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) says, they are paid poorly relative to other members of their profession. The most significant problems in the court system have been caused by 14 years of chronic Tory underfunding of the court system itself, the Crown Prosecution Service and the prison system, which means that: far too few people are held on remand; people are being bailed when they should not be; people are being dealt with very swiftly to try to deal with custody time limits; and there are so many problems baked into the system as it stands that victims are being wholly failed. We need to ensure the system is invested in and reformed in such a way that those problems do not continue to be exacerbated, one of the most enormous ones being—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. If the hon. Lady wants to contribute to the debate she always has the opportunity to ask the Member in charge and the Minister, but interventions must be shorter than that.

[Mary Glindon]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am sure we will hear from the Minister that the Labour Government have a lot of plans to hopefully right all those wrongs.

In recent days, we have heard the Minister for courts and legal services, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) signal toward once-in-a-generation-type reforms, as well as the need to think boldly. I welcome her ambition. For the women and girls who are waiting for their day of justice, I would be grateful if the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking in the short to medium term.

As I bring my speech to an end, I want to give voice to a constituent who wrote to me with her experience. I want her to know that there are people listening. I want her to know that she has shown exceptional bravery by sharing her story in the hope that others will not have to endure what she has. I want her to believe that the Government can put this right. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end with her words, which are deeply moving and a powerful expression of what she and others are going through:

“In one word, dying. I feel like dying. To end the pain of living every day knowing that the trial could be postponed again, like it has so many times now. I am living in limbo, with the weight of the trial weighing on me every day. The intense anxiety in the run-up to the trial date is unbearable. I can’t eat, sleep or enjoy anything. There is absolutely nothing for me to look forward to. It’s like trying to walk through the deepest muddiest river and getting absolutely nowhere, just stuck in the same place. And that is what it is like every time the trial is postponed and I have to wait months for the next trial date. And the cycle starts again. It is killing me every single day.”

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With the reminder that there is no formal time limit, and if we wish to get in as many Members as possible, could Members please constrain themselves to about eight minutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I will press on.

Much would rely on regulations using the negative procedure, and some the affirmative. Even if not prepared within two years, clause 42(3) says the Act would be fully implemented. The Bill changes the role of the chief medical officer without any analysis, as is the case for doctors. During the 14-month Health and Social Care Committee inquiry, we heard how the clinician-patient relationship changed with assisted suicide. Record keeping and data collation is inadequate, as we found in Oregon.

Clause 18(9) highlights that the procedure may fail. The Bill is silent on how to manage such cases, but it should be explicit. We must acknowledge that it is not always peaceful. We learned in Oregon that some have seizures or vomit as the body rejects the toxic medication.

The Bill falls woefully short on safeguarding patients, too. It is too flawed to amend. It is a wrong and rushed answer to a complex problem. Today, we must be beyond reasonable doubt of error if voting for the Bill. Remember, the vote is not on the principle of assisted dying or on choice, but the principles detailed within the clauses of the Bill. Polling overwhelmingly says that if Members are in any doubt, the public expect them to vote against the Bill today. We can focus on optimising palliative and end of life medicine to build consensus and to discern what further steps need taking. For death, as with life, is too precious to get this wrong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy]

Will my hon. Friend give way? I pay tribute to her for the strength that she is showing. Indeed, I pay tribute to all Members on both sides of the House who are dealing with this very difficult issue. Does she agree that we already have assisted dying in this country? Legislation already allows for choice, proving that people would be able to die at home with carefully administered, practitioner-led pain management. Does she agree that the inconsistency of this application of good pain management at the end of life, causing compassionate legislators to feel that the only option is to vote for the Bill, is a failure of our existing national health system, and does she—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions will have to be short in this debate because many Members wish to speak, so perhaps that is enough.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right. When we see the system working, it is great, but some of what we have heard today has referred to a failure of the system. That cannot be a reason for us to accept the Bill today. For more than 30 years I have been scrutinising the policies and actions of public bodies and seeing the mistakes that they make, both in the care sector when I was in local government and more recently as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank all the Members who have spoken for setting the scene so well, and for giving so many personal examples in explaining where we are at the moment. It is nice to see the Minister back in the House, and it is also nice to see her elevated to her present position. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) in particular for presenting the case so well and so succinctly.

I speak as someone who was named in a civil litigation High Court case involving the covid vaccine, of all things in this world—my goodness!—along with the Northern Ireland Minister for Health and other representatives from our area. We were named collectively by someone who had decided to do it. The case had no foundation whatever, but I nevertheless had to appoint a barrister and prepare to defend something that needed no defence, along with many other Members of the Legislative Assembly and civil servants. Although this was litigious and unnecessary and had no legal foundation, the stress and the time that it took up were terrible. Those with few means or moneys pursued a SLAPP against others who were totally innocent. The judge struck out the case of one defendant straight away, and the domino effect was that the rest of us received the same treatment by right. I was very thankful for that approach when I was having to pay legal fees from my own pocket for discussing and voting for Government policy—which was a bit hard to comprehend.

We live in an increasingly litigious society. Defence can cost everything to many people, and although in many cases costs will be awarded, that cannot compensate for the sleepless nights and the levels of stress, and give back the peace that was taken away and replaced by a dark, weighty cloud of uncertainty.

We have seen a number of SLAPP cases recently in Northern Ireland; they seem to be happening regularly. In January, Northern Ireland’s High Court dismissed a “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious” defamation claim brought against the Belfast journalist and author Malachi O’Doherty by the Sinn Féin politician Gerry Kelly. The foundation of the SLAPP was that the journalist had dared to talk about the Maze prison breakout that had been detailed in Gerry Kelly’s own books, and about the fact that he had shot a prison guard.

Mr Kelly tried to silence the reporter, apart from expecting him to offer an apology for stating what everyone in Northern Ireland knows to be the truth. Indeed, the magistrate highlighted the content of those very books, which appeared to make Mr Kelly civilly liable, on the balance of probabilities, for the shooting of Mr Adams, the prison guard. Mr Kelly knows what happened, the prison guards knew what happened, his fellow escapees knew what happened, and—most important —Mr Adams’s family know what happened, yet Kelly attempted to silence discussion of it with a lawsuit. The judge was very clear in his ruling that cases could be thrown out, stating that the proceedings

“bear the hallmarks of a SLAPP and have been initiated not for the genuine purposes of vindicating a reputation injured by defamatory statements, but rather for the purpose of stifling the voices of his troublesome critics.”

This is why we need the ability for the judiciary to step in at an early stage and prevent the stifling of freedom of speech in such civil cases. It seems to be an old trick on the part of many people who like to drag up the past of others while silencing the voices that speak about their own past. I read an interesting article published by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition about another Sinn Féin case, this time involving Gerry Adams, who was attempting to use this method to silence those highlighting the news that he could be civilly sued by victims of the London and Manchester bombings. According to the article, last year 15 organisations wrote to the leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, to express concern about the use of SLAPPs by party members. The co-chairs of the coalition wrote:

“It is incredibly concerning that efforts to call out legal intimidation are now being subject to legal intimidation themselves. While solicitors do remain independent from their clients, they cannot disassociate themselves from the legal tactics that are deployed in the course of litigation.”

I believe that to be true.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the situation can be addressed, hopefully through legislation in the House. This tactic must be called out for what it is, which is not to say that we should never be able to prevent someone from spreading lies and falsehoods—we, including every Member in the House, must retain the right to defend our character—but that is different from using a legal machine to silence the little man or the little woman. I support legislation throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I believe we must ensure that it is in place for the judiciary to use as and when it is needed. Freedom of speech is worth protecting in legislation—we all say that—and I believe that this Parliament must send that message today. Legislation is needed, and I look forward to hearing from the Front Benchers have to say.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing time for it.

All of us in this Chamber are interested in the upkeep of our democracy. As part of that, we must be vigilant at all times. We must always work to construct a democracy that enables those in positions of power to be held to account, and then we must do everything in our power here to protect that system. Without it, we are on a slippery slope to tyranny. With that in mind, we must all be clear about the fact that SLAPPs have absolutely no place in our democracy, and I think all Members are clear about that. SLAPPs are intended to censor, intimidate and silence those who challenge powerful vested interests. SLAPPs burden critics of the rich and powerful with eye-watering legal defence costs. SLAPPs prevent the misdeeds of the rich and powerful from being reported publicly, and in doing so they limit the ability of society to scrutinise people in positions of power. Regardless of their protestations, the people who use SLAPPs know exactly what they are doing.

I came to this place to fight for liberal values, but as Members on both sides of the House have said today, this is an issue that commands consensus across the political spectrum. We have heard representatives from at least six party make basically the same points. My liberal values mean that I have a healthy scepticism of concentrations of power, whether it is state power, private power or, as is so often the case with SLAPPs, the financial power of an individual or a company—which in some cases, as others have said, is unlimited financial power. As a liberal, I feel a strong sense of duty to stand up for the right of all of us to hold those in powerful positions to account. That right is at the very heart of our democracy, and SLAPPs are an affront to our democracy.

We must absolutely secure the rights of critics, journalists and commentators to hold the powerful to account. Failure to do so places the rights of those who already have huge power and money to defend their position, and their corrupt practices and any other wrongdoing, above the importance of free challenge as part of the public debate. Members who have spoken about this subject previously have already said that while SLAPPs are not always applied with the intention to win a case, they are used as a means of deterrence against organisations or individuals who engage in public advocacy or speak out on matters of public concern. Dissent is silenced—including, in so many cases, dissent on the part of investigative journalists—and the impact on our public debate is chilling.

One case that demonstrates the issues raised by these legal processes involves of a story published by Inside Housing. This trade publication conducted an investigation of the conditions being endured by homeless people and asylum seekers who had been placed in an office-to-residential conversion in north London. Journalists witnessed a stain on the ceiling apparently caused by leaking sewage. They also found a broken fire safety door, and damp problems risking the health of the vulnerable people living in the building. People placed in the accommodation were funded by taxpayers’ money. That clear case of public interest should have involved the naming of the landlords and the building, which would have enabled power to be held to account. However, when the journalists from Inside Housing gave those responsible—the landlords—the right of reply, they received a letter from solicitors threatening legal action.

The article stated:

“While Inside Housing would be confident of defending its journalism, the cost and time involved in the legal action would be difficult for an organisation of our size.”

Consequently, a landlord who was offering substandard and potentially dangerous accommodation to vulnerable people, and who was taking taxpayers’ money, was not named. The threat of legal action meant that even the building could not be named. We do not know whether that landlord is still in receipt of public sector contracts, or whether they are still running buildings that are not fit for habitation, and there is no way for us to find out, as their identity was never published because of a SLAPP. That is just one example of power not being held to account for its misdeeds. Other examples of the impact of SLAPPs that have been raised in the Chamber today have been instructive.

A number of publications have been mentioned today, and I want to do something unusual for a politician: offer thanks to Private Eye. It regularly makes brave editorial decisions to give this issue the oxygen of publicity that it deserves, and it names without fear or favour. As a subscriber and a former journalist, I value its contribution. I also pay tribute to other organisations, including those that are part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. Other Members have mentioned the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, too.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are calling for a comprehensive anti-SLAPPs law to be passed, and we call on the Government to lay a schedule for when it might happen. We hope that when the legislation is brought forward, it will not be stymied by the inclusion of subjective tests that require the court to infer the state of mind of the complainant. That will merely make the situation more complex, and it will further the ends of those who use SLAPPs. Any legislation must be effective in protecting free speech, whistleblowers and media scrutiny. We cannot allow the chilling effect to continue. We must all be vigilant and, in this Parliament, end SLAPPs to protect our democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

The right hon. Gentleman also pre-empts the next part of my speech. I am very happy to tell the House that I am keen to consider a range of non-legislative measures—procedural measures in the court—while not ruling out the possibility of legislation in future, but I want to take time to look at what options will work best.

As I said, we are also paying close attention to evolving approaches to SLAPPs in other jurisdictions, notably following the adoption of the Council of Europe’s recommendations on SLAPPs, which were concluded last year.

Legislation is not the only weapon in our arsenal to deal with abuse of the system. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken action. Its updated warning notice on SLAPPs in May this year reminded solicitors and law firms of their duties and the serious consequences of breaches of those duties, with new fining powers of up to £25,000 when a regulated firm or individual does not meet its professional standards. The SRA also published guidance for members of the public who may have been targeted by a SLAPP, including details of how to report the activity so it can be investigated and dealt with promptly. Up until May this year, the SRA had received a total of 71 reports on SLAPPs, and two cases have been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. We remain engaged with legal service regulators on this important subject. I am clear that where UK law firms or practitioners are accused of breaching their duties, it is important that regulators can hold them to account and tackle poor conduct. I therefore welcome the work of the SRA in doing that.

The SLAPPs taskforce, referred to by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), was, as he will know, launched in September last year to support journalists who are working to investigate and publish stories in the public interest. The taskforce sits within the framework of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, and has worked on non-legislative measures to protect public interest journalism from SLAPPs, alongside the measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. The DCMS is engaged on this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), will be meeting members of the SLAPPs taskforce later this month to discuss progress, including how data collection and sharing has improved understanding of the prevalence of SLAPPs experienced by the media profession.

I am confident in the careful and considered approach that this Government are taking to the issue of SLAPPs. It is important that we listen closely to the differing views on this topic and that any action we take is proportionate. That involves considering a range of options for longer-term reform that accounts for the diversity of views expressed by stakeholders and those targeted by these abhorrent actions.

To echo the Prime Minister, behaviour that makes use of SLAPPs is intolerable and we will tackle it to protect investigative journalism and free speech, while also ensuring access to justice. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for championing this critical issue and all those who tirelessly campaign against abuse of our legal system and for freedom of speech. Nothing could be more important.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

To wind up this afternoon’s first debate, I call Lloyd Hatton.